Re: 10.0

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Greg Stark
Тема Re: 10.0
Дата
Msg-id CAM-w4HMd8N02MTDfs4_+qs3BxQ4yHryVpvfAa9ZY_kpOb_ytdw@mail.gmail.com
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: 10.0  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Ответы Re: 10.0  (Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>)
Список pgsql-hackers
On Sat, May 14, 2016 at 1:00 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:

> If that were the standard, we'd never have bumped the major version at
> all, and would still be on 4.something (or whatever Berkeley was using
> when they tossed it over the wall; I'm not too clear on whether there was
> ever a 5.x release).

I thought the idea was that Berkeley tossed an source tree over the
wall with no version number and then the first five releases were
Postgres95 0.x, Postgres95 1.0, Postgres95 1.0.1, Postgres95 1.0.2,
Postgres95 1.0.9. Then the idea was that PostgreSQL 6.0 was the sixth
major release counting those as the first five releases.

-- 
greg



В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Nikolay Shaplov
Дата:
Сообщение: [PATCH][Documination] Add optional USING keyword before opclass name in INSERT statemet
Следующее
От: Peter Eisentraut
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: 10.0